5.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Trebnje.
6.  On 24 September 1946 the Ljubljana Division Military Court (Divizijsko vojaško sodišče v Ljubljani) convicted the applicant’s uncle and legal predecessor, Mr A.Z., of the offence of collaboration with the “Black Hands” organisation during the Second World War. He was sentenced to 10 years’ deprivation of liberty with forced labour and forfeiture of property to the State. The applicant’s uncle lodged an appeal with the Military Court of the IVth Army (Vojaško sodišče IV. armije), which was dismissed on 25 October 1946. Following the conviction, the immovable assets belonging to the applicant’s uncle were expropriated by a ruling of the Grosuplje District Court (Okrajno sodišče v Grosupljem), rendered on 22 November 1946.
7.  The applicant’s uncle died on 4 September 1949, bequeathing his movable assets to his sister, the applicant’s mother. She died in 1973, leaving her property to the applicant and his brother and sister.
8.  In 1991, after the establishment of independence of the Republic of Slovenia and the change of the political regime, the applicant’s aunt requested the retrial of her brother, the applicant’s uncle. On 19 March 1993 the Ljubljana Basic Court, Ljubljana Unit (Temeljno sodišče v Ljubljani, Enota v Ljubljani) acceded to her request and re-opened the criminal proceedings. Following the withdrawal of all charges by the Prosecutor General, on 2 September 1993 the court terminated the proceedings and quashed the conviction. The decision became final on 19 September 1993.
9.  On 3 December 1993 the applicant initiated proceedings against the Grosuplje Municipality before the Ljubljana Basic Court, Grosuplje Unit (Temeljno sodišče v Ljubljani, Enota v Grosupljem), in order to obtain restitution of or compensation for the immovable assets forfeited by his uncle, invoking the Act on Implementation of Penal Sanctions. The forfeited property consisted of the following items: four houses, several plots of land, a hayrack and other farm outbuildings.
10.   On 1 April 1994 the applicant modified his request and included the Republic of Slovenia as an additional defendant in the restitution proceedings. He also urged the court to start processing his case.
11.  On 5 December 1994 the court cancelled a scheduled hearing and adjourned it sine die.
12.  The applicant again modified his request and included the Municipality of Ivančna Gorica and the Municipality of Dobrepolje among the defendants.
13.  On 21 April 1995 the court held a hearing, at which it decided to appoint an expert in building construction and an expert in agriculture.
14.  On 1 March 1996 the applicant again modified his request in order to include among the defendants also the Farmland and Forest Fund of the Republic of Slovenia (Sklad kmetijskih zemljišč in gozdov, “the Fund”). He also lodged a request for a temporary injunction, and urged the court to deal promptly with the case.
15.  On 19 March 1996 the court held another hearing, at which it decided to grant the requested temporary injunction. It also ordered the Fund to return three plots of land to the applicant. The Fund appealed.
16.  The court upheld the appeal and changed its decision of 19 March 1996. That decision became final on 31 May 1996.
17.  On 9 August 1997 the Act on the Temporary Suspension of Certain Provisions of the Denationalisation Act and of the Act on the Implementation of Penal Sanctions entered into force. It had the effect of suspending extant restitution claims under these two acts, originally until 20 December 1997 and subsequently, under new legislation, until 31 March 1998. While those provisions were in abeyance, the Parliament passed the Act on Amendments and Supplements to the Act on Implementation of Penal Sanctions (see under “The Relevant Domestic Law and Practice”).
18.  Between 10 September 1998 and 16 September 2003 the court held four hearings. At the hearing held on 10 September 1998 the court issued an order appointing an expert in building construction and an expert in agriculture. Neither the applicant nor his legal representative attended the hearing held on 12 September 2000. At the hearing held on 7 October 2002 the court decided to appoint another expert in building construction instead of the appointed one.
19.  On 3 October 2003 the court terminated the restitution proceedings due to the withdrawal of all the applicant’s claims on 1 October 2003. The applicant subsequently recalled his withdrawal and lodged an appeal against the decision of the court of 3 October 2003.
20.   On 4 November 2003 new claimants – further legal successors of the applicant’s uncle – requested to join the proceedings on the applicant’s side and appealed against the decision of the court of 3 October 2003 to terminate the proceedings. On 3 November 2004 the court quashed its decision of 3 October 2003 and decided to continue with the restitution proceedings.
21.  On 21 April 2005 the re-named Grosuplje Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Grosupljem) awarded compensation in bonds of the Slovenian Compensation Society amounting to 179,225,156 Slovenian tolars (“SIT”) (EUR 747,838) to be divided among the heirs of the late A.Z., from whom the property had been forfeited in 1946. The judgment became final on 23 May 2005.
22.  On 2 September 1996, on the basis of Sections 538 and 539 of the 1994 Act on Criminal Procedure, the applicant, his sister and his nephew lodged a formal request with the Ministry of Justice in order to secure their right to compensation for loss of profits amounting to 198,726,975.80 SIT.
23.  On 9 December 1996, further to the failure of the Ministry to respond to their request within the prescribed period of three months, they commenced proceedings in the Ljubljana District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Ljubljani). At that time, the lost profits were estimated by the applicant and his relatives at 198,726,975.80 SIT, from lost rent and income from the cultivation of the land.
24.  On 24 March 1998 the court cancelled the scheduled hearing sine die due to the sick leave of the acting judge.
25.  On 3 June 1998 and 11 June 1998 the applicant urged the court to deal promptly with their case and to set the date for the first hearing.
26.  On 6 July 1998 the court held a hearing, at which it decided to appoint an expert in building construction and an expert in agriculture. It further decided, with the consent of the parties, to adjourn the hearing until the Constitutional Court decided upon the applicant’s constitutional initiative challenging the amendments to the Act on Implementation of Penal Sanctions.
27.  On 23 March 2000 the court released the expert from his duties and appointed another expert in building construction.
28.  On 21 February 2003 the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal in order to accelerate the proceedings before the court. The acting judge reported that the court was waiting for the final decision in the restitution proceedings.
29.  On 10 April 2003 the court held a hearing, at which the Republic of Slovenia requested the court to stay the proceedings until a final decision was taken in the restitution proceedings on the applicant’s right to restitution of the forfeited property. The court granted the request and on 5 May 2003 decided to await the decision in the restitution proceedings. According to the reasoning of the court, the issues dealt with in the restitution proceedings were of a preliminary nature for the court, since the amount of the compensation for loss of profits depended on the question whether the claimant was awarded the restitution of property in natura, or in the form of compensation for the forfeited property.
30.  On 6 December 2005 the court held a hearing and rejected all the applicant’s claims. The applicant did not appeal, whereas his relatives did. As for the applicant, the judgment became final on 21 December 2005.